Saturday, March 28, 2015

Monday, November 10, 2014

Christopher Nolan, famous for The Dark Knight Trilogy, Inception and Memento, has once again brought his A-game to the newly re-sparked
space genre with Interstellar.
Prerelease trailers had defined a rather simplistic movie, but with Nolan
rarely is anything taken at face value. In fact, Interstellar is
just the opposite and perhaps at times over-complex.

In a near future, Matthew McConaughey plays a farmer/ex-space
pilot—Copper—in a dying earth that is doomed by frequent sand storms. With the
help of his daughter Murph, he “stumbles” on a NASA secret. He then faces a risky journey into deep space with other
scientists, Anne Hatheway (Amelia Brand) and Wes Bentley (Doyle), to save his
family and the human race. This sets up the premise of the movie but what
really takes the viewer in are the relationships between the characters—father
and daughter and father and son.

Much like Inception, the movie holds Nolan’s artistic
convictions very close to heart. Interstellar boasts some impressive visual scenes with
some never seen before special effects, especially in the spatial creation of
some of the extraordinary sights in the unforeseen and mysterious universe.
With Gravity’s ground-breaking visual
effects in 2013; it felt like nothing much could have been added to the
space-genre arena but Interstellar
showed otherwise. Gravity
is the winner on the direction and visual scale, but Nolan’s new space
adventure ultimately wins audience’s hearts with its emotional gravitas.

The struggle between Copper and his daughter Murphy during
his “endless” journey is one of the key story lines that drives the
thrill in the movie. It establishes a strong humanistic quality to the film
that will at several occasions make you take out the tissue box. Anne
Hathaway’s character never fits into her role as a scientist, instead she takes
a more accompanying role in the film. Her character ends with an interesting
plotline but rarely is she defined independently. She relays a few thoughts
about the transcendence of love, a recurring theme in the film, but beyond that
not much can be said.

Perhaps its most praised and criticized aspect is its
scientific jargon that at times is enlightening yet also confusing. Its
scientific seriousness in quantum physics adds a realistic touch
to the movie, but for the larger part, it takes away the well-deserving focus
on the others characters’ struggles. With all its intricacy, Interstellar, unsurprisingly, is a movie made for multiple viewings in which things
might become clearer.

Hans Zimmer, frequent collaborator of Christopher Nolan,
once again scores the film’s soundtrack. He effectively reflects the complexity
of the multi-dimensional universe in his cues while adding a small touch of
human drama. The use of the powerful and heart-trembling organs add a novel element to his previously
derivative work. It deepens the musical setting of what already seems a very deep and emotionally complex film. It's safe to say that Zimmer has taken back his spot among the best music producers in the film industry. However, it should be noted that the sound mixing is at
some points overruling, making a recited poem in the film incomprehensible.

Movies this daring, this original, and this thought-provoking
rarely hit cinemas and when they do— they are really hard to resist.
Interstellar, with all its greatness and its mistakes, is another example of
these outstanding movies.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Where is the Spider Man franchise heading?

The Spider-Man franchise has gone a long way from its
successful debut in 2002 with actors Tobey

Macquire and Kristen Dunst. It scored some
of the biggest records at the time of its release, notably the first film to
gross more than $100 million on its opening weekend. It garnered a similar
success with its sequel, but things started to fall apart and Spider Man 3
wasn’t that lucky. Following some complications in pre-production and
“conflicting schedules,” the Sam Raimi franchise lost its steam and was finally
shelved.

In 2012, 5 years after Spider Man 3’s underwhelming release,
Sony rebooted the franchise with The
Amazing Spider Man (TASM) with director Marc Webb. Audience response was
mostly unpleasant, with remarks along the lines of “been there, done that.”
Despite Sony attempts to distinguish it from the initial franchise, comparisons
to the original franchise and disdain towards an early reboot continued. And,
most people overlooked the major reason Sony had to reboot the franchise so
quickly. To answer that question a bit of background knowledge of Marvels’
history is needed.

Surprisingly before the successes of the X-Men and Spider
Man, the company had financial difficulties and surely not enough money to
produce a superhero film. So, the company sold different properties to various
film studios. The agreement had certain provisos, one of which puts an expiry
date on the film license that is contingent on the theatrical usage of the
character. If Sony didn’t claim its
rights, by not releasing a Spider Man film, the character film rights would
have reverted back to Marvel Studios which is currently part of the Disney conglomerate.
Several properties have reverted/sold back to Marvel, notably Iron Man and
Electra and recently Dare Devil. As such, Disney’s legal force has put many
time constraints on studio schedules.

While North American audience members were less receptive to
The Amazing Spider Man, international
markets were more forgiving, invoking more than $495 million. This translated
to a solid $757.9 million global gross, but it marked the lowest grossing
Spider-Man entry in the franchise. The Amazing Spider Man 2 also lowered the
margin with $708.3 million, partly due to a cannibalizing schedule in its North
American market. Spider-Man was once the superior of comic book heroes, but now
with a high influx of CB movies, it has become like the others, just another
character in the group.

At this stage, Sony decided to work on a Spider-Man centered
universe—in the hopes of replicating the astounding success of the
Marvel/Disney universe. And, it’s no surprise. Columbia Pictures/Sony aren’t the
only distributors who are fighting for the piece of pie in this business.
Within 3 years, more than 18 comic book based movies are scheduled to be
released from both Marvel and DC comics. As of now, it is unclear if they are
only placeholders for other movies or if they are the real deal. Sony only
claims 3 of these huge line up of movies—a far-cry compared to that of Disney’s
and DC’s universe. In all fairness, though, Sony doesn’t have much to go on in
order to create a sustainable universe. This is among one of the few reasons
Sony will have a very hard time reproducing Disney’s success.

Peter and Gwen's relationship was the highlight of the first two films

Sony’s upcoming films may show off the idea of a connected
franchise, but what makes a solid franchise is its base, i.e. The Amazing
Spider Man 1 and 2. One of the main differences between the Amazing Spider Man
and the original Spider Man franchise is the darker tone (A direct result of
Nolan’s Batman trilogy). While I consider the darker tone far more interesting,
it does have its drawbacks especially in the type of crowd it attracts. Spider
Man’s core demographic is children, but the movie’s atmosphere is more apropos
for adults. This struggle takes a huge toll on the audience’s interest from
both young and adult demographics. The sequel reduces the dark tonality of the
film, but replaces it with a cockier Spider Man that makes children laugh but
not adults. Once again, this imbalance continued the loss of interest and decreased numbers.

It has become a standard that a franchise is considered
successful if a sequel can maintain or out gross its predecessors gross. At
this point, the Spider Man franchise is still considered “successful” but its
prospects aren’t auspicious. At face value, Sony’s effort at expanding the
Spider Man franchise seems clever: by diversifying your characters, you have a
better chance of attracting different audience members and making more money.
But, it’s easier said than done.

Sinister Six marks
the first film in Sony’s expanded franchise. It is set to be released on November
11, 2016. Considering it as a sequel to TASM2 would be a huge inaccuracy since
the ending of TASM2 isn’t in a place that would encourage viewers to watch a
Sinister Six movie. Instead it should serve as a buildup to TASM3. Without the
image of Spider Man, the film will have a hard time advertising its worthiness,
especially to younger audiences who are the main drive in this franchise. So,
expectations for Columbia Pictures shouldn’t aspire high. They will need a very
strong marketing campaign, which targets the correct demographic unlike TASM2
which suffered from ineffective market segmentation, especially for female
audiences. With more complex and new characters, Sinister Six is supposed to
change public perception and if possible attract a larger audience. However,
previous evidence (eg. Catwoman) doesn’t accurately show how villain-centered
movies perform at the box office. It remains unknown if villains can become a
consumer attraction? With superhero fatigue on the rise, Sinister Six might
just be the film that audiences are waiting to watch—just like Guardians of the Galaxy.

At this point, it’s very clear that all the weight is
falling on the Sinister Six. If it succeeds, then it’s a blinkering green light
for the TASM3. Evidence for Sony’s failing franchise has become quite
conspicuous. Sony rescheduling plans were done in an impromptu manner. TASM2’s
Blu-ray Release contains outdated bonus features in which Marc Webb incorrectly
refers to the “next sequel” as TASM3 when in fact the new plans have Sinister
Six as the next film. This type of sudden and unpremeditated changes are very
concerning and they place a big question mark on the future of this rebooted
franchise. It also is unsurprising that there is a 2 year time gap between the
Sinister Six and TASM3. It offers the production company an excuse to back out
of TASM3 before investing substantial amounts of money into it.

How they connect all the movies together in the franchise
will play a critical role in determining how successful TASM3 would be. The
four year difference between TASM2 and TASM3 is in itself a very problematic
situation for the character. In fact, it is only a year short of how long it
took Sony to reboot the franchise. From an investment point of view, it offers
a lower financial risk but it also has negative consequences for the prospects
of the franchise. Large gaps between movies, especially the way TASM2 ended,
disintegrate audience interest. The fact
that the superhero market is also expanding is another warning for the company
because it will have a hard time establishing its footing in the increasingly
competitive market. If Sinister Six could keep the image of Spider Man alive
and build tension to a growing battle in TASM3, then it might very well save
the franchise and perhaps allow Spider Man to re-attain its place as the
crowned king of superhero films.

Extra Note: Another option for Sony is making a Marvel reunion; it
would most definitely insure a huge revenue for the film but the company’s
profit is unlikely to be huge. If they can strike a good deal with Disney, then
it would help the image of Spider Man and Sony significantly.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Will “X-Men Days of Future Past” be the next Avengers?

Comic-based movies have become the main appeal of audiences
as well as investors. Every major film distributor wants to get their hands on
their next Avengers hit. Sony has Spider-Man, Fox has X-Men, WB has the DC
universe with Superman, and the most lucrative—Disney has The Avengers.

But, can all of them prosper? As of now
audience fatigue hasn’t kicked in most of the franchises. Most exceptional, of
course, is The Avengers. Marvel’s gradually building work on the franchise has
made it one of the most trusted and successful brands in the comic-book movie
industry. It’s no secret that their crown jewel—Marvel’s The Avengers—is
currently sitting among the three highest-grossing films of all-time. Analysis
of their success is mostly clear now; every film they release always out
grosses its predecessor. However, other franchises are still attempting to find
flight on the ground. For 2014, there is one contender that could perhaps
ultimately change its franchises’ fortune and without further ado it is X-Men: Days of Future Past.

Our previous analysis of The Wolverine revealed several details about how the X-Men franchise had become
disorganized. To quote a relevant sentence from before: “Hopefully, the
upcoming film [The Wolverine] will serve as connector and open new doors to
other X-men films.” And our hopes came true as Fox finally decided to build
something instead of just making stand-alone films with no general purpose. As
of now, it’s still quite unclear what Days
of Future Past is set to do. Is it a clean slate? Or is it just another
sequel? And to what? While the prospects of future X-Men movies is still
uncertain, one thing is for sure: the latest X-Men ensemble is invoking a
strong response among audiences.

The evidence starts with being one of the most-anticipated
films of summer 2014. In fact, based on a recent Rotten-Tomato based compile, X-Men Days of Future Past is leading
with the highest want-to-see rating and votes at 99% and 128,000+. While
trailer view counts were previously good predictors for audience anticipation
and size of demographic, recent figures have become less substantial. To simply
highlight the stats, the most-viewed trailer has been watched more than 29 million
times which is on par with upcoming film The
Amazing Spider-Man 2. The reason trailer views are less significant is due
to different marketing strategies used by distributors. Recently, a full-grown
one week prior to release marketing effort is being used; this means that all
the anticipation builds up in the final week. And estimating the opening
weekend of a film is less accurate using trailer views that mostly attract
fans. Facebook likes and more specifically increase in Facebook likes have become
better box-office indicators. The X-Men page currently boasts a solid 10
million likes close to Captain America’s 11 million likes. There has been a
noticeable increase over the past few months, slightly lower than that of
Captain America though. Note that the Captain America page started in 2010
while the latter started in 2011. The small margin might account for the 1
million difference in likes, but such small differences are not very important.

Fox’s promotion material has so far been very well used.
Their restrain in releasing images and spoiler-filled trailers has been quite
effective. However, their recent release of footage and trailers notably the
few minutes of the opening scene is less a form of restrain but more of a blatant blow-out to grasp the target audience’s attention. Surely, this tactic has its
advantages but their former strategy—of presenting a few but intriguing
images—is far more useful. The non-hardcore moviegoers are used to seeing
action; it seems that more action implies a better film. The final trailer
makes use of that fact by showcasing the grand-scale action scenes and a few
comic scenes. Regardless, the structured
presentation of the three trailers is a solid marketing effort. The first is a
simple introduction into the time-travelling plot, the second takes on a darker
look with further explanations using background voices of Charles Xavier, the third
and final trailer unleashes the action and throws in a bit of humor. The
diversified tones of the trailers should attract different type of audiences beyond
only the aficionados.

Perhaps the biggest selling point of the Days of Future Past
is the fact that it is combining two different time frames: X-Men First Class and the original X-Men. Fox has been marketing that quite well using their
trailers by showing scenes from the original X-Men trilogy. The main question
that arises is: How different and similar is it to the combo of the Avengers?
The Avengers combined 3 different characters who each had a proper
establishment. X-Men doesn’t have that; they are combining two realms that are
in effect the very same thing. Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America are not necessarily intertwined. In other terms,
fans of Iron Man are not necessarily those of Captain America and Thor which
means that an overlap in fanbase or moviegoers is less. X-Men, on the other
hand, is combining two realms with mostly the same fanbase, so it is highly
unlikely to see a staggering opening weekend such as that of The Avengers. Instead, Fox’s goal here
is to win back fans who had lost interest after the end of the 2006 trilogy.

A good estimator for the base gross of the fifth X-Men
installment is The Wolverine,
released in July 2013. It is the last X-Men movie to hit theaters before Days of Future Past. It accrued a below
par North American tally of $132.6 million but an in series record-setting
non-North American gross of more than $282.2 million. These numbers represent
the latest interest-levels in the X-Men movies. However, the caveat worth
mentioning is that The Wolverine was
the first film in the series to be released in 3D, hence an increase in
non-North American figures is quite normal. Following the original trilogy of
the X-Men franchise, interest levels slowly diminished in its major
market—North America. The final film in the trilogy, X-Men: The Last Stand (2006), grossed a record-high $234.4 million
for the series. When adjusted for inflation, the numbers rise to $284.8 million
which is very close to X2: United when also adjusted to 2014 tickets.* If the same
diminishing factor is applied to the latest X-Men ensemble, the results
would be catastrophic.

Based on early audience response, the final North American
box office prospects seem more propitious. If we consider Days of Future Past as a sequel to First Class, the numbers escalate to $200 million. Moviegoers who
have seen First Class would mostly
likely classify Future Past as a
sequel due to its setting and characters. Nonetheless, the trailers also show a
different part of the movie bringing back characters from the original X-Men.
So, a final box office gross between $200 million and $240 million should be a
good range. The most concerning point in the stats is the weakening grosses
(near 43%). Out beating such a pattern with the strong competition this summer
will be quite the feat.

With an uncertain and original plot, X-Men Days of Future Past is building up to be one of the most
surprising box office mysteries of this summer. The threshold is at $150
million but the ceiling is almost double that. If the film can tap into the
power of its old fans then a gross above $250 million is the least of its
worries. Internationally, the figures have been slowly rising and although 3D
is not going to be a relevant booster it would most definitely sustain, if not
surpass, The Wolverine’s $282.3
million gross. While the latest film may not reach the same levels as The Avengers, it should and most likely
will become “The Avengers” of its own series. Expect,

North American Forecast: $240 million Non-North American Forecast: $395 million Worldwide: $635 million

*Extra Notes:

The next movie in 2009, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, took a
considerable 23.2% and 13.8% dip in
North American and international sales respectively. In 2011, Fox released a
prequel/pseudo reboot for the X-Men with First
Class. Although it was well-received by critics as well as audiences, it
still experienced a light cut-down in its USA and Canadian grosses.
Internationally, audiences were more receptive and it sore slightly higher. The
ongoing audience fatigue in North America continued when The Wolverine, which
was also well received, took in the least North American cume for the whole
series.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Perhaps the most mature and intelligent
addition to the Avengers franchise.

Captain America geared up in a new suit

We have seen the man in the armored suit, we have seen the thunder
god with his earth-shattering hammer, but with more than 2 chances in their
respective sequels neither has been able to venture beyond the guy who just kicks ass. Marvel’s cinematic universe expands
with Captain America: The Winter Soldier but it also diverges into new and refreshing territory. The latest installment
has a great deal to boast and distinguish from the typical movies that Marvel’s
line up has brought.

Following the events of The
First Avenger and The Avengers,
the film continues to focus on Steve Rogers as he adjusts to modern day life. Although
Captain America believes that he is the only person who has outlived his time,
the dark plot slowly uncovers hidden fragments from his past that have lingered
on to the present. With this continued secrecy, the atmosphere of the film is
set. The audience, much like the titular Cap, is mostly unaware of the grand
scheme which solidifies the suspense of the present movie and extends the
mystery to upcoming films.

As Rogers lives his low-profile life in Washington DC, he
meets a former soldier, Sam Wilson (Falcon), during a run out in the park. Even
with a few friends and a job, Captain America reminisces his past glory days with
a visit to the museum. His hidden isolation becomes more tragic after seeing Peggy Carter, a long-time friend, living in an elderly house. The contrasting portrayal of age
is a strong reminder of the enduring difficulty that Rogers is facing. Including
this minor sub-plot serves as a perfect emotional pay-off since it establishes
a part of the hero that we can actually care about. Shortly after, the questions
and mysteries begin: with a car chase following Nick Fury by an unknown team
and a “heartless” masked villain, named The Winter Soldier.

To counterweigh the dark plot, a few effectively humorous
scenes take over. One of which is Steve’s attempt at understanding the 21st
century which includes a notebook for a list of things to do ranging from eating spicy Thai foods to Steve Jobs, go
figure.

With the Russo brothers in the director’s seat, things
seemed quite uncertain at first—after all, most of their work involved
comedies. However, it’s clear that they are a perfect match for comic book adapted
movies. The action sequences are very well orchestrated. Their realistic
rendering of the Falcon’s flight is elegantly shown: the motion as he flies
high up in the air and takes deep dives down is a captivating and transporting
experience.

The film adopts multiple styles, including an undercover
raid, a spectacular car chase with Nick Fury, and a marvelous fight-off between
the Winter Soldier and Captain America. The collective fight scene between the
villain and the protagonist is intense in nature but also liberating. The
moment Cap’s shield collides with the metallic force of the soldier, a strong
reverberation propagates towards the audience’s seats. The climax of this
fight-off fortunately strays away from the overly exaggerated Iron Man 3
firework ending and instead portrays the true definition of a hero encompassing
much of the sacrificial ideals.

Forgetting Natasha Romanoff, played by Scarlett Johansson,
would be very remiss since she is one of the most entertaining characters in
the film. Her sexy and acrobatic moves are impressively shot with focuses on
almost every angle. Her performance alone should warrant her a stand-alone
movie; there is a lot that needs to be uncovered about this feisty
superheroine.

Running at almost 130 minutes, the Captain America sequel
spends a tad too much time on the action. Unlike other superhero movies,
however, it doesn’t have a dire effect on important aspects such as character
progression and plot cohesiveness.

Without delving into the details of the plot and spoilers,
another success from the film is its preeminence in not only portraying highly
entertaining sequences but also highlighting social and political concerns of
contemporary relevance, including intrusion of privacy and governmental deceit.

The Avengers was an all through excitement, but Captain
America: The Winter Soldier adds to that; it is a breathlessly captivating and
often complex action-thriller mostly due to its focus on the humanity and
frailty of the characters. With a more mature plot and interesting characters,
Marvel’s latest entry is the best superhero film from The Avengers universe
even though it indulges in a few extra minutes.

Monday, March 3, 2014

[Fair warning before I continue with this review. If you
haven’t watched season one of House of Cards, then run-off and do
something else or run-off and start watching.]

It’s been a whole year since the debut of the first season
of “House of Cards” and it’s been quite a long wait. Season two finally came
storming in this Valentines—and it surely wasn't a love story. It brings back
all that we loved about the first season and more.

“House of Cards” is perhaps one of the darkest shows there
are out there. It even beats “Walking Dead” which is definitely considered to
be one of the top contenders for “dark shows”.
But, both shows are in different realms, miles apart. While “Walking
Dead” follows the survival of a group of people in a zombie apocalypse, “House
of Cards” focuses on a congressman’s machinations and betrayals as he navigates
towards the oval office.

Season 2 continues where season one ended, without taking
any pit-stops or moments of air. The
first episode is almost equally shocking as the previous seasons’ major
character death. While fragments of this plot-line cover the first part of the
season, the true spot-light falls on Frank Underwood’s ascent to presidency.
With his grasp of presidency so close, Frank becomes ever so brutal and
relentless. Similar to the previous season, Kevin Spacey often breaks the
fourth-wall and speaks right to the audience. Although this form of dialogue is
rarely seen in movies, it is very apropos especially considering the political
nature of the series. Without the short asides, we are only exposed to the
deceptive façades and “political crap” that comes out of the politicians. They
also often contribute to the humor of the series—which to some is considered inadequate,
but in reality, it is well-tuned with the atmosphere of the show.

It is true that Frank Underwood is the protagonist; however
his wife, Claire Underwood (Robin Wright), is unequivocally the genuine heart
and center of the story. Their relationship is very reminiscent of
Shakespeare’s Macbeth, yet also quite
different. In contrast to Lady Macbeth, Claire plays a strong role in the
series and indulges her own share of the plot. Their marriage seems less built
on love but more on mutual desires and correspondent goals. She might sometimes
even seem more ruthless than her husband but, in fact, she just puts a strong
and unwavering veneer. As a result, the most powerful scene of the whole show
is when the audience finally sees Claire flesh deep—without any of her masks.
Although it’s just a small glimpse of humanity, it is definitely something to
look forward to in the next season.

“House of Cards” is impressive on all levels, but the most remarkable
aspect of the series is the visual design and cinematography. The color palette
used in the episodes are not the usual bright warm colors instead they are
slightly tinted—making the images more absorbing. The most attractive colors
are the crisply dark wooden oak against the blue colors of the American flag.
The overall effect reflects the tone of the series that is far away from the
security and comfort that one would expect and closer to a mysterious
unravelling. Another visually spectacular
scene that translates from the first season is the end-of-the-day lighting of
the cigarette. The dark night superposed with the elegantly growing smoke is
definitely a central tableau. Specifically, the contrast of the fume and the
night creates a blue-tinted smoke that is exquisitely striking. It’s dark but it is a
beautiful dark.

The second season of “House of Cards” reaffirms its place as
one of the best TV shows; it comes with a few shocking surprises along the way
– but never depicts the protagonist at anything but his highest. To end the
analogy with Macbeth, only when the
tragic hero or in this case the villain is at his paramount is he meant to go
down. And that is what we should expect from season three.

Friday, January 24, 2014

The opening scene of “12 Years a Slave,” directed by Steve
McQueen, follows the perspective of an unknown figure slowly uncovering the
leaves of a lush sugar cane field perhaps searching for food, trying to survive. It bears a strong resemblance
to what the protagonist, Solomon Northrup, says: “I don’t want to survive…I
want to live.” Solomon
Northrup was a free-black musician living in New York City of 1841 with his family of
two children and his wife Anne until he was lured into a false job, ensnared,
and sold into slavery. When he pleads to his captors that he is a free man, he
is beaten till nothing is left of the wooden plank.

While the first few scenes evoke an intimate atmosphere of
difficulty and hopelessness, the flashback of Solomon’s family walking down the
streets of New York City highlight the essence of the film which is not the
return of the ‘hero’ to his family but the experiences of Solomon’s and other’s
victimization. It transcends simple
narratives and emotional exaggerations for a perfectly constructed and balanced
film that encompasses the full gamut of the horrific realities and vicissitudes
that have befallen the enslaved.

As such, Steve McQueen and screenplay writer John Ridley had
to put a great deal of time in shaping the characters. And, it’s clear from the
achievements of the movie that their work paid off. Every character takes a
special and complex turn offering more than a stark rendition. The
relationships in the film from master to slave and slave to slave change
drastically as Solomon jumps from one master to another (although the backdrop
always looks the same.) Solomon’s change from a state of disbelief and helplessness
to acceptance is perfectly portrayed by Chiwetel Ejiofor. Although Solomon
changes his outlook on the situation, he never loses sight of who he is and his
dignity. Brad Pitt as the carpenter—perhaps the only ‘good’ person—brings some
light in the evil and sadistic world of Michael Fassbender’s Edwin Epp, a bored
drunk man who enjoys playing with his toy slaves. His nightly dancing shows are
distressing scenes that are very reminiscent of a puppeteer playing with
puppets. Even more deplorable are his detours into Patsey’s—a distraught young
slave played powerfully by Lupita Nyong’o –cabin to fill his sexual hunger. Against
all his repugnant acts however, Fassbender still manages to show Epp’s
conscience via his hidden insecurity and guilt.

“12 Years a Slave” is
not an easy film to watch and it’s not meant to be easy. Silent and dark scenes
are directly followed by noisy and bright shots sans the dissolving and fading
interpositions. In fact, McQueen uses this technique several times by
juxtaposing the dark and light beauty of nature with the loud and hectic
violence of the day. The transition between the scenes forces audience members
not only to see the pain but also empathize with the characters. This is a
perfect addition to the already graphic and gruesome sequences that are meant
to pierce through the viewer’s eyes and heart.

One might argue that a misstep in the movie is its
‘inability’ to portray the diuturnity of Solomon’s enslavement, the whole 12
years he spent apart from his family. However, Steve McQueen sacrifices the
portrayal of time for something more important—the existential isolation and
slavery. This is where the distinction between living and surviving is made clearer.
And, instead of gradually showing the passage of time, McQueen favors a subtle
and ingenious approach whereby the final scene culminates all the absence of
time in one powerful and shocking image of the fully-grown family that Solomon once
knew as children. (Begging the question—where have I been?)

It’s quite sad that such a great movie is accompanied by a
derivative and undeveloped score composed by Hans Zimmer. Over the years, Hans
Zimmer has lost his originality and almost everything he touches ranging from “Man
of Steel” and “Captain Phillips” has the
same cue from “Inception’s” ‘Time’ or from “The Thin Red Line’s” ‘Journey to the Line’ but with a few edits in
volume and orchestration.

Its brutal and intimate direction gives you no choice but to
watch and endure. “12 Years a Slave” is a wrenching and captivating panorama of
the African-American’s unimaginably and inexpressibly appalling circumstances.

Friday, November 22, 2013

The latest installment in the Hunger Games franchise is boasting an impressive 85% in advance daily-ticket sales with a staggering 100% fanticipation of Fandago. It's currently outpacing Iron Man 3 to become the top-advance ticket seller of 2013. Although the Fandago numbers don't always have a direct proportionality with its percentage of ticket sales, 'Catching Fire' is poised to gross above its predecessor and possibly Iron Man 3's debut.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Marvel’s vast universe has opened roads to multiple
comic-book movies that have so far been successful. Thor: The Dark World is yet another addition to Marvel’s line up of
superhero movies. With already three
outings in the cinematic world, Thor’s role remains obscure—leaving his
importance more comparable to a side-story. The first film in the Thor franchise was arguably a great
set-up for the character but then again it was just a “start.”

Now that Marvel has another chance to cement and redefine
Thor’s character, one would expect a strong sequel with more focus on what
makes Thor so different from all the other superheroes. But, Thor 2 overlooks such concerns and follows
the much used to action-concentrated style. But, the question is: how does it
fare in that aspect?

Quite well. The first half of the film is close to
perfection—making a perfect blend of mystery, darkness and humor. The second
half becomes somewhat ambiguous leaving several character motivations and
plot-lines undeveloped.

Perhaps the two
most memorable and witty sequences in the movie are the London subway scene in
which Thor is forced to take the subway (“Which way to Greenwich?”) and the
hammer hanging scene where Thor hangs his mighty Mjölnir on a coat rack similar
to an umbrella. Other supporting characters also add humorous scenes but their
role only sums up to another form of comic relief without any real character
development. The effect is less than desirable but in terms of the whole movie,
the few extra laughs do make things more fun. Furthermore, unlike many other
action/superhero movies in which the “girlfriend”
is just another romantic tool, Thor: The
Dark World gives Natalie Portman’s character—Jane Foster—an integral role
in the story-line. This definitely improves the stakes and suspense of the film
since she is susceptible to real damage.

However, the most common mistake that the second Thor movie falls into is building a
plot-line on a simple and half-baked villain. But, then again, that isn't all
too bad as long as it is balanced with other interesting sequences. In this
case, the adjustment comes from one of the few complex characters in the
film—Loki. His conflicted and often comic personality adds an exciting twist to
the film. While Loki’s relationship with his “mother” is one of the more
effective parts of the movie, his true colors finally appear at the end of the
film when the audience is kept on the edge of the seat—wondering what follows.

The most recent outing of the demi-god, Thor, is neither
worse nor better than its predecessor. It excels in a few aspects but disregards
some of the underlying issues. While that doesn’t hinder the over-all
experience of the film, it surely doesn’t make it any better. With great
special effects from the spectacular scenes in Asgard and the refreshing
direction from Alan Taylor (director of one of the best episodes from Game of Thrones), Thor: The Dark World offers a more than satisfying albeit not
fulfilling 3D experience.